Fortunado v.

CA
GR No. 78556; 21 April 1991; Cruz, J.
DOCTRINE (from Campos p. 546)
In case of redemption of property sold under execution, a tender of payment within the
prescribed period, of the redemption price by check which was accepted by the sheriff,
constitutes valid exercise of redemption, without prejudice to the actual payment of the purchase
price. Redemption is a right and not an obligation, and thus not covered by Art. 1249, CC.
FACTS
On April 21, 1981, RTC-QC rendered judgment in a civil case entitled Alfaro Fortunado v.
Angel Bautista ordering the defendant (Bautista) to pay damages to the plaintiff. Pursuant to
the judgment, the respondent sheriff levied upon two parcels of land registered in the name of
Bautista.

The second lot had already been purchased by respondent National Steel
Corporation (NSC) but had not yet been registered.
-

The lots were sold at a public auction to the petitioners as the only bidder. They were
issued a certificate of sale.

On Jan 10, 1985, NSC gave notice to the sheriff of its intention to redeem the second lot.
The sheriff suggested that both lots should be redeemed as the two lots were sold for a lump
sum price of P267,013.

On Feb 11, 1985, NSC filed with the trial court an Urgent Motion to Redeem both lots.
This was opposed by the petitioners on the ground that the movant did not have personality to
intervene.

As the period of redemption would expire on April 18, 1985, NSC issued to the sherif
on March 20, 1985, a PNB check in the amount of P296,384.43 as the redemption
price for the second lot. The sherif acknowledged receipt of the same check.

On March 21, 1985,

Bautista sent the sheriff a Letter bearing NSCs conformity in which he availed himself of
NSCs check, which was sufficient to cover the full redemption price for both lots, to
redeem the other lot.

The letter contained a

reservation that the redemption is made solely for the purpose of effecting the execution
and delivery to Bautista of the necessary certificate of redemption. It shall not be taken as
his acknowledgement of the validity of the writ of execution and sale or as a waiver of
legal remedies available to him.

The sheriff acknowledged

receipt of the check as redemption for the two parcels of land on March 21, 1985. He
issued a certificate of redemption the next day in favor of NSC and Bautista.

In an Urgent Motion, Bautista prayed that the sum covered by the PNB check be delivered
and kept by the Clerk of Court of the RTC-QC until such time as all incidents relative to the
validity of the auction sale conducted by the sheriff were finally resolved.

Upon being notified of the said deposit, the counsel for the petitioners told the sheriff that
he was rejecting the check because it was not legal tender and was not intended for payment
but merely for deposit as evidenced by Bautistas Urgent Motion.

The petitioner requested the sheriff to issue a final deed of sale over the two lots and
deliver the same to them on the ground that no valid redemption had been effected within the
12-month period from the registration of the sale. When the request was not granted,
petitioners filed with the CA a Petition for Mandamus.
1


Petitioners argued that
1
Art. 1249 , CC was applicable to redemption under Rule 39, Section 30, ROC

Since the check issued by

NSC is not legal tender, it could not be considered payment of the redemption price.
-

CA: denied mandamus

Rejected the contention

that Art. 1249 was applicable in cases of redemption

Reiterated that settled

jurisprudence that the right of redemption is not an obligation nor is it intended to
discharge a pre-existing debt, the right of redemption being in fact a privilege

Cited Javellana v. Mirasol

and ruled that the redemption was not rendered invalid by the fact that the officer
accepted a check for the amount necessary to make a redemption instead of requiring
payment of money.

Petitioners filed an Appeal by Certiorari.

ISSUE: W/N redemption had been validly effected by private respondents NSC and
Bautista Yes.
HELD: Petition denied. CA Decision affirmed.
RATIO
Tolentino v. CA, citing Javellana v. Mirasol, stresses the liberality of the courts in
redemption cases.
-

The right of redemption is an absolute privilege, the exercise of which is entirely

dependent upon the will and discretion of the redemptioners. There is no obligation to exercise
the redemption.

If the redemptioners choose to exercise their right, it is the policy of the law to aid rather
than defeat the right of redemption. It should be looked upon with favor and where no injury is
to follow, a liberal construction will be given to our redemption laws as well as to the exercise of
the right of redemption.

Redemption is not rendered invalid by fact that the officer accepted a check for the
amount necessary to make the redemption instead of requiring payment in money.
-

If he had seen fit to do so, the officer could have required payment to be made in lawful
money, and he undoubtedly, in accepting a check, placed himself in a position where he could
be liable to the purchaser at the public auction if any damage had been suffered by the latter
as a result of the medium in which payment was made.

Validity of payment is not affected. The check as a medium of payment in commercial

transaction is too firmly established by usage to permit of any doubt upon this point at the
present day.

Here, although the private respondents did not file a redemption case, against the
petitioners, it should be noted respondent NSC filed an Urgent Motion for Redemption dated
Feb 11, 1985, and Bautista filed an Urgent Motion (to Deposit Redemption Money with QC Clerk
of Court) dated March 27, 1985. The motions were well within the redemption period.

Minor issue: W/N Bautistas letter where he made his redemption subject to the
reservation [that it shall not be taken to mean his acknowledgement to the validity of
1

Art. 1249. The payment of debts in money shall be in the currency stipulated, and if it is not
possible to deliver such currency, then in the currency which is the legal tender of the Philippines. xxx

the writ of execution and sale or as waiver of any legal remedies available to him] is
valid Yes, it is valid.
-

Had he not made the reservation, estoppel might have operated against him since
redemption is an implied admission of the regularity of the sale.

In questioning the writ of execution and sale and at the same time redeeming his property,
Bautista was exercising alternative reliefs. The right of redemption is always considered
compatible with ownership, and one who fails to obtain relief in the sense of absolute owner
may successfully assert the other right.

Clarification
-

The decision does not sanction use of check for payment of obligations over the objection
of the creditor.

The decision holds that a check may be used for the exercise of the right of redemption,
the same being a right and not an obligation. The tender of a check is sufficient to compel
redemption but is not itself a payment that relieves the redemptioner from his liability to
pay the redemption price.

Thus, private respondents properly exercised their right of redemption. However, they
remain liable for the payment of the redemption price.